DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cross-sectional shapes in claim 5, namely the “V-shapes, C-shapes, I-shapes, H-shapes, O-shapes, S-shapes, (and) Y-shapes” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 contains “i)” and “ii)” in line 6. It is suggested to remove them for clarity.
The claims alternate between the use of “circumferential tread portion” and “tread portion throughout. It is suggested to only use one form of the limitation (i.e. change all mentions of “tread portion” to “circumferential tread portion” or vice versa) for clarity.
The claims alternate between the use of “circumferential hub portion” and “hub portion throughout. It is suggested to only use one form of the limitation (i.e. change all mentions of “hub portion” to “circumferential hub portion” or vice versa) for clarity.
The claims alternate between the use of “radial outer foot portion” and “foot portion throughout. It is suggested to only use one form of the limitation (i.e. change all mentions of “foot portion” to “radial outer foot portion” or vice versa) for clarity.
The claims alternate between the use of “radial inner head portion” and “head portion throughout. It is suggested to only use one form of the limitation (i.e. change all mentions of “head portion” to “radial inner head portion” or vice versa) for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "wherein each of the first elastomer composition and the third elastomer composition has a stiffness… and wherein the second elastomer composition has a stiffness" in lines 2 and 3. It is unclear if the stiffnesses being referred to are the same as the “first stiffness”, “second stiffness”, and “third stiffness” mentioned prior or if each of the elastomer compositions have more than one stiffness range
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cron et al. US 20200039293 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Cron discloses a non-pneumatic tire comprising a circumferential tread portion 230 and a supporting structure comprising a circumferential hub portion and a plurality of supporting elements 100 which are arranged radially between the tread portion 230 and the hub portion, and which extend from the hub portion towards the tread portion 230 to support the tread portion 230 on the hub portion, wherein at least one of the supporting elements 100 comprises: a first portion (Radially outer foot portion or Radially inner head portion in labelled Fig. 5) comprising a first elastomer composition having a first stiffness and a second portion (Intermediate portion in labelled Fig. 5), radially adjacent the first portion, comprising a second elastomer composition having a second stiffness different from the first stiffness. (Figs. 5 and 6; para. 48)
PNG
media_image1.png
591
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
386
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Cron discloses the non-pneumatic tire according to claim 1, wherein the first elastomer composition has a stiffness G’(1%) which is within a range of 15 MPa to 100 MPa. (para. 48, lines 4-7)
Regarding claim 3, Cron discloses the non-pneumatic tire according to claim 1, wherein the second elastomer composition has a stiffness G’(1%) which is within a range of 0.1 MPa to 5 MPa. (para. 48, lines 1-4)
Regarding claim 4, Cron discloses the non-pneumatic tire according to claim 1, wherein the supporting elements 100 are rubber spokes comprising cords extending within the rubber spokes. (Fig. 9; para. 49)
Regarding claim 5, Cron discloses the non-pneumatic tire according to claim 1, wherein the supporting elements have cross-sectional shapes, in a plane parallel to the equatorial plane of the tire, including one or more of: X-shapes, V-shapes, C-shapes, I-shapes, H-shapes, O-shapes, S-shapes, Y-shapes, half-X-shapes, and one or more of bent shapes and kinked shapes of the aforementioned shapes. (Fig. 5 shows a half-X-shape)
Regarding claim 6, Cron discloses the non-pneumatic tire according to claim 1, wherein the at least one supporting element 100 has a radially outer foot portion 114, a radially inner head portion 112, and an intermediate portion 130 located radially between the foot portion 114 and the head portion 112, wherein at least one of the radially outer foot portion 114 and the radially inner head portion 112 comprises the first elastomer composition having the first stiffness (para. 48, “rear generally triangular portion 150”), and wherein the intermediate portion 130 comprises the second elastomer composition having the second stiffness, wherein the second stiffness is at least 5% lower than the first stiffness. (Fig. 3 and 5; para. 48)
Regarding claim 7, Cron discloses the non-pneumatic tire according to claim 1, wherein the at least one supporting element 100 has a radially outer foot portion 114, a radially inner head portion 112, and an intermediate portion 130 located radially between the foot portion 114 and the head portion 112, wherein one of the radially outer foot portion 114 and the radially inner head portion 112 comprises the first elastomer composition, and wherein the other one of the radially outer foot portion 114 and the radially inner head portion 112 comprises one or more of the first elastomer composition, and a third elastomer composition (para. 52 lines 8 and 9 disclose the filaments in the legs 142, 144 have a “modulus of approximately 10 MPa”) having a third stiffness different from the second stiffness, wherein the intermediate portion 130 comprises the second elastomer composition, wherein the stiffness of the first elastomer composition and the stiffness of the third elastomer composition are higher than the stiffness of the second elastomer composition, and wherein the second stiffness is at least 5% lower than each one of the first stiffness and the third stiffness. (Fig. 3 and 5; para 48 and para. 52, lines 8-9)
Regarding claim 8, Cron discloses the non-pneumatic tire according to claim 1, wherein the supporting structure further comprises a radially outer circumferential ring portion 200, wherein the supporting elements 100 extend from the circumferential hub portion to the radially outer circumferential ring portion 200. (Fig. 6, para. 52, last 3 lines)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cron et al. US 20200039293 A1.
Regarding claim 19, Cron teaches a non-pneumatic tire comprising a circumferential tread portion 230 and a supporting structure comprising a radially inner circumferential hub portion, a radially outer circumferential ring portion 200 supporting the tread portion 230, and a plurality of supporting elements 100 arranged between the ring portion 200 and the hub portion to support the ring portion 200 on the hub portion, wherein at least one of the supporting elements 100 comprises a first elastomer composition having a first stiffness. (Fig. 6; para. 48)
Cron does not specify the elastomer composition of the hub portion or outer ring portion and so does not teach wherein at least one of the hub portion and the ring portion comprises another elastomer composition different from the first elastomer composition and having another stiffness which is at least 5% higher than the stiffness of the first elastomer composition. However, Cron teaches “the elastomer of the various components for any of the spokes may be changed, altering the shear stresses and resiliency of the spoke design” (para. 63, lines 5-7) and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the stiffness of the outer ring or hub portion at least 5% higher than the stiffness of the support elements to meet the stress and resiliency requirements of the design with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cron et al. US 20200039293 A1 in view of Abe US 20180222254 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Cron discloses the non-pneumatic tire according to claim 8. Cron does not explicitly disclose wherein the supporting elements are integrally formed with the radially outer circumferential ring portion and the circumferential hub portion.
Abe teaches non-pneumatic tire where the supporting elements 14 are integrally formed with an inner ring 11 and an outer ring 13 (para. 26). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrally form the supporting elements with the outer circumferential ring portion in order to simplify the tire molding process with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Cron and Abe teach the non-pneumatic tire according to claim 9. Cron further teaches wherein the at least one supporting element 100 has a radially outer foot portion 114, a radially inner head portion 112, and an intermediate portion 130 located radially between the foot portion 114 and the head portion 112, wherein the radially outer foot portion 114 is integrally formed with the radially outer circumferential ring portion 200 and the radially inner head portion 112 is integrally formed with the circumferential hub portion, wherein at least one of the foot portion 114 and the head portion 112 comprises the first elastomer composition, and wherein the intermediate portion 130 comprises the second elastomer composition having the second stiffness which is at least 5% lower than the first stiffness. (Fig. 6; para. 52, last 3 lines)
Cron does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the hub portion and the radially outer circumferential ring portion which is adjacent the at least one of the foot portion and the head portion comprising the first elastomer composition, comprises also the first elastomer composition. Abe teaches the integrally formed components are made from a mixture which contains one or more elastomer (para. 26) and which could have different components that are inserted or added on after the initial molding (para. 28). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the ring portion out of the same elastomer composition as at least a portion of the support element to simplify molding and ensure predictable behavior with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Cron and Abe teach the non-pneumatic tire according to claim 9. Cron further teaches wherein the at least one supporting element has a radially outer foot portion 114, a radially inner head portion 112, and an intermediate portion 130 located radially between the foot portion 114 and the head portion 112, wherein the foot portion 114 comprises the first elastomer composition, and wherein the head portion 112 comprises one of the first elastomer composition and a third elastomer composition having a third stiffness different from the second stiffness and wherein the intermediate portion comprises the second elastomer composition having the second stiffness, which is at least 5% lower than each one of the first stiffness and the third stiffness. (Fig. 3 and 5; para 48)
Cron does not teach wherein the radially outer foot portion is integrally formed with the radially outer circumferential ring portion and the radially inner head portion is integrally formed with the circumferential hub portion, wherein the radially outer ring portion comprises the first elastomer composition and wherein the hub portion comprises one of the first elastomer composition and the third elastomer composition. Abe teaches non-pneumatic tire where the supporting elements 14 are integrally formed with an inner ring 11 and an outer ring 13 (para. 26) wherein the integrally formed components are made from a mixture which contains one or more kinds of elastomer (para. 26) and which could have different components that are inserted or added on after the initial molding (para. 28) to accommodate more materials and designs. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrally form the supporting elements with the outer circumferential ring portion and hub portion as well as to make the ring portion out of the same elastomer composition as at least a portion of the support element to simplify molding and ensure predictable behavior with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, Cron and Abe teach the non-pneumatic tire according to claim 11. Cron teaches wherein the first elastomer composition has a stiffness G’(1%) which is within a range of 15 MPa to 100 MPa; and wherein the second elastomer composition has a stiffness which is within a range of 0.1 MPa to 5 MPa. (para. 48)
Cron does not teach wherein the third elastomer composition has a stiffness G’(1%) which is within a range of 15 MPa to 100 MPa. However, Cron does teach that “the elastomer of the various components for any of the spokes may be changed, altering the shear stresses and resiliency of the spoke design” (para. 63 lines 5-7). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a matter of routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05) to select a third elastomer composition which has a stiffness G’(1%) which is within a range of 15 MPa to 100 MPa to find the optimal shear stresses and resiliency of the spokes with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, Cron and Abe teach the non-pneumatic tire of claim 12. Cron further teaches wherein the intermediate portion comprises a radially outer sub-portion and a radially inner-sub portion and wherein one of the radially outer sub-portion and the radially inner sub-portion comprises the second elastomer composition (Fig. 5 (see annotated figure above); para. 48) and “the elastomer of the various components for any of the spokes may be changed, altering the shear stresses and resiliency of the spoke design” (para. 63, lines 5-7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a matter of routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05) that the other one of the radially outer sub-portion and the radially inner-sub portion comprises a further elastomer composition, wherein said further elastomer composition has a stiffness G’(1%) within a range of 4 MPa to 20 MPa, and which is at least 5% lower than the stiffness of the first elastomer composition and third elastomer composition and which is at least 5% higher than the stiffness of the second elastomer composition to meet the desired resiliency and performance characteristics with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Cron and Abe teach the non-pneumatic tire according to claim 13. The tire of claim 13 would inherently have the characteristics listed in claim 14 because the portion with the stiffer elastomer would naturally not deform as much in a radial direction as the portion that is less stiff and vice versa. Therefore, Cron and Abe also teach wherein one of the radially outer sub-portion and the radially inner sub-portion has a larger radial deformation under maximum vertical load of the tire than the other one of the radially outer sub-portion and the radially inner sub-portion, and wherein the sub-portion having the larger radial deformation under maximum vertical load comprises the second elastomer composition and the sub-portion having the smaller radial deformation under maximum vertical load comprises the further elastomer composition.
Regarding claim 15, Cron and Abe teach non-pneumatic tire according to claim 12. Cron further teaches wherein the intermediate portion comprises a first sub-portion, a second sub-portion and a third sub-portion, wherein the second sub-portion is arranged radially between the first sub-portion and the third sub-portion, (see annotated Fig. 5 above) wherein the second sub-portion comprises the second elastomer composition (Fig. 4, para. 48) the first sub-portion and the third sub-portion comprise one or more further elastomer compositions having each a stiffness G’(1%) within a range of 4 MPa to 20 MPa, (para. 52, lines 8 and 9) which is at least 5% lower than the stiffness of the first elastomer composition and third elastomer composition and which is at least 5% higher than the stiffness of the second elastomer composition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claims 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The limitations pertaining to an “X-shaped spoke” that comprises a “first elastomer composition” which has a “first stiffness” and a “second elastomer composition” which has a “second stiffness” in claims 16 and 20 are not taught or suggested in prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX R PALMER whose telephone number is (703)756-1981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AP/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615